{"id":21970,"date":"2019-10-04T14:54:02","date_gmt":"2019-10-04T18:54:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=21970"},"modified":"2019-10-04T15:10:16","modified_gmt":"2019-10-04T19:10:16","slug":"nyc-targets-illegal-alien-phrase","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2019\/10\/04\/nyc-targets-illegal-alien-phrase\/","title":{"rendered":"New York City Targets the Phrase \u201cIllegal Alien\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In George\nOrwell\u2019s dystopian novel 1984<\/em> the\nruling totalitarian government created Newspeak<\/a> to control the thoughts, speech, and\nactions of the citizenry. It was \u201cdesigned to diminish the range of thought.\u201d Newspeak,\nas a literary device, is a clear warning against the government\u2019s censorship of\nspeech. Newspeak not only prohibits<\/em>\nspeech, but it compels <\/em>individuals to\nuse \u201ccorrect\u201d speech. Plainly, it is a means of control. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I thought of\nOrwell\u2019s novel when I saw headlines that New York City has now banned people\nfrom using the term \u201cillegal alien,\u201d the correct legal term<\/a> used in both U.S. Code and by\nmultiple federal agencies. Both The Hill<\/a> and CNN<\/a> report that new guidelines<\/a> from the NYC Commission on Human Rights<\/a> fine individuals who use the term \u201cwith\nintent to demean, humiliate or harass a person.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\npolitical battle over the phrase \u201cillegal alien\u201d is not new. In a comment to\nthe Library of Congress, my organization FAIR argued that maintaining correct\nterminology is important. The concluding remarks of that 2016 comment<\/a> read, \u201cThe semantic wrangling over\nthe term \u2018illegal alien\u2019 goes beyond whether particular words are proper to use\u2026\nReferring to an illegal alien as an \u2018undocumented immigrant,\u2019 or any other such\neuphonious alternative is, ultimately, the denial that a foreigner is in the\nUnited States in violation of the law. This is the first step in denying the\nAmerican people the right to determine who is admitted into their country and\nunder what conditions.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the\ncontext of New York\u2019s new guidelines, flippantly saying \u201cillegal alien\u201d on the\nstreets of New York is not against the law. These new guidelines instead place\nan additional fine for using it in the pursuit of actions that are already\nillegal, such as unlawful profiling, workplace harassment, and extortion. But\nit represents an attempt to force individuals to self-censor regardless.\nExtreme forms of workplace harassment are already illegal \u2013 harassing a\ncoworker by calling them an \u201cillegal alien\u201d now carries additional <\/em>penalties. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The largest\ncity in the United States, and one of the country\u2019s most egregious sanctuary jurisdictions<\/a>, is trying to police private speech because\ncity bureaucrats dislike it. The Commission provided numerous examples of\ninteractions that it would consider illegal. One includes a shop owner berating\na customer to speak English. Another includes hurtful remarks from an\nindividual\u2019s co-workers to \u201cgo back to where you came from.\u201d Harassment,\ncertainly \u2013 but these actions now carry an additional punishment because New\nYork City is choosing to normalize illegal immigrants as a unique and protected\nclass. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Are such\nremarks mean or even cruel? Certainly. Should the city government <\/em>step in to prevent individuals from saying nasty things?\nAbsolutely not. People say cruel, mean, and hurtful comments daily. But at the\nend of the day, in a free society, it is not the government\u2019s role to go around\npolicing speech and punishing people for saying mean – even intentionally cruel\n\u2013 things. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further, New\nYork City\u2019s new may violate the First Amendment, as the Heritage Foundation\u2019s\nHans von Spakovsky argues<\/a>. The Supreme Court has repeatedly\nruled that the First Amendment protects private offensive speech. As recently\nas 2017, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Matal v. Tam<\/em><\/a> <\/em>that \u201cSpeech that demeans on the basis of race,\nethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is\nhateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect\nthe freedom to express \u2018the thought that we hate.\u2019\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless,\nthe city of New York has no business telling individuals what they can and\ncannot say to each other. Why does the city care if a private business owner\nacts boorishly by asking a customer to speak English? There are already laws on\nthe books against needless harassment. The policing of speech, in the hope of\nchanging private behavior, is tantamount to bureaucratic mission creep. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

New York\nCity has loudly and proudly declared itself a sanctuary for illegal aliens. The\ncity\u2019s government already refuses to cooperate with ICE to identify and remove\ncriminal illegal aliens. Now, they are leveling additional penalties on people\nfor calling someone an illegal alien, or for other acts that \u201cdemean\u201d aliens. The\ncity already has the tools to combat everyday harassment. The new Commission\nfor Human Rights guidelines target free speech that its bureaucrats don\u2019t like.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Newspeak is\nalive and well in the Big Apple.  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In George Orwell\u2019s dystopian novel 1984 the ruling totalitarian government created Newspeak to control the thoughts, speech, and actions of the citizenry. It was \u201cdesigned to diminish the range of thought.\u201d Newspeak, as a literary device, is a clear warning against the government\u2019s censorship of speech. Newspeak not only prohibits speech, but it compels individuals<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":78,"featured_media":21972,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[1450,6,4,14],"tags":[71,1457,689,6635],"yst_prominent_words":[6631,2216,1926,6627,6625,6633,2429,2013,2010,2008,6634,2331,6632,6628,2242,6629,6626,1933,6630,2460],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21970"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/78"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21970"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21970\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21971,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21970\/revisions\/21971"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/21972"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21970"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21970"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21970"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=21970"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}